Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 19:06 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Linux Foundation 2021 annual report by pizza
Parent article: Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
And here we go again.
> A little thing called 'Linux' comes to mind, deployed on literally billions of devices around the planet.Yeah. Precisely and exactly: when you ask free software zealot about something free software camp creates they immediately start bringing software created by people who very explicitly don't share his ideals.
Just a couple excerpts from the interview with the creator of that software:
> - Do you think that the phenomenon of Android, Google's operating system for cell phones, is another example of the power of free software?> -Absolutely. The notion that you can take open source software, and do things with it that were never planned by its original creators, and use them in surprising ways is really the core idea of open source.
Note the words used by the interviewer. Note the worlds used by Linus. And no, it's not a coincidence:
> - Why do you think people use the term GNU little to talk about Linux?> - I never used the name GNU. Linux was never a Free Software Foundation project, and the FSF never had anything to do with it.
It doesn't come any clearer than that.
No, Linux doesn't show the power of free software movement. It had nothing to do with it and RMS even tried to squash it in the beginning (by attempting to force Drepper to concentrate on supporting sillborn HURD, not Linux) because if that.
Only when that turned free software zealots turned around and started presenting it as their seminal achievement.
And they still attach anyone who dares to just say the simple truth: the only thing FSF gave Linux — is GPLv2 license. And even then Linus felt the need to ensure that FSF couldn't “alter the deal”.
> Additionally, the overwhelming majority of "the cloud" also runs Linux, along with a considerable amount of actively developed Free Software deployed on top of it, which in turn provides the basis for all of the "innovative value add" that everyone and their dog use to sell profiled eyeballs to advertisers.Note how you have to twist words. From “new software” to “actively developed” software to hide the fact that all that “free software” was, actually, developed decades ago. When it was easier to appropriate software from “open source” camp because it haven't existed. After that grand separation… what kind of widely-used-in-cloud software was created?
> Yet it _still_ underpins nearly everything else.So what? Achievements of one guy who considered himself alchemist first, everything else second underpine the modern civilization. This doesn't make his search for the philosopher's stone any less stupid.
And I'm not sure for how long it would underpin “everything else”. Aforementioned “billions of devices” don't use any FSF software. Yes, they use Linux, but precisely and exactly because Linus is a sensible guy and not a free software zealot.
And No GPL in the userspace is explicit goal (though not yet fully realized… they are working on it…). It's considered a problem, not the solution.
Posted Dec 8, 2021 20:14 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (13 responses)
More Free Software is being created today than at any previous point in history.
Proportionally, it's not a lot, but it never was. Even "open source" software is a minority of the total software produced today.
Posted Dec 8, 2021 21:19 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (12 responses)
And how exactly the fact that Linux, by virtue of it's license, can be classified as free software makes it immoral for the Linux Foundation members to use Adobe InDesign on Macintosh? Because that's exactly what free software zealots are trying to preach. Only by the virtue of the fact that most of the open source software can be classified as free software, too. Note how FOSS term have fallen out of favor. Note how people are using “open source” more and “free software” less. And no, that's not lack of education (as RMS tries to portray). It's conscious decision. And that's okay — with open-source folks, but not with free software zealots. They become more and more obnoxious and more and more maginalized. But yes, if you would read formally and would say that free software is thriving — because more and more of it is created by folks who couldn't care less about that fact that someone claims he supports open source while simultaneously using Adobe products on MacOS or Windows — then free software would be with us for a long time yet. But then, please, stop saying that people should using Adobe products on MacOS or Windows if they claim that they are open source supporters. Two choices, actually:
And yes, two choices, same conclusion — because that's how our world works. You couldn't first claim that it doesn't matter that Linus shares RMS ideals or not if he makes free software and turn around and try to pretend that amount of free software gives you the right to demand respect for your ideals. Yes, there are a lot of free software in that world, but creators of said software don't share your ideals! Deal with it.
Posted Dec 8, 2021 22:10 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
Huh? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
> They become more and more obnoxious and more and more maginalized.
Of the various folks in this thread, you appear to be the only one whose behaviour matches the "zealot" description, harping on and on about folks' motivations, and repeatedly labelling and passing judgement on mostly-unrelated folks based on the actions of a single troll.
I have no idea what you're actually trying to say beyond repeating "Free Software is old, busted, and irrelevant; Everyone who says otherwise is an unreasonable zealot / doody-head" until you're frothing at the mouth.
Seriously, chill out.
Posted Dec 8, 2021 23:14 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
That's my question, ultimately. If he were “a single troll” then it wouldn't be a problem. But he's not alone. You may look here and then here and here… that harassing is not a new thing and not something just a single troll does. Now, thankfully, you are half-right: number of free software zealots is not that large. Apparently it's large enough to justify that botched attempt to hide origins year ago, but this year Linux Foundation decided that since the are not doing anything criminal then there are nothing to hide… Also: note that the one who are you calling a single troll actually have a name, he's not anonymous. That's not something trolls are doing. No, I'm afraid the truth is much more sad: most likely he actually believes that if someone said that said someone is promoting “open source” (not even free software!) then that someone should immediately become a free software advocate and start fighting for that world without non-free software. And he's not alone. Take this, e.g.: if you take into account that many free software projects are being starved out (some of them even critical infrastructure), then perhaps more modest numbers would carry a stronger message. Just why should people who are not even saying they are promoting free software should react to the fact that certain projects don't get funding because they refuse to negotiate by trying to “send a stronger message” by picking asceticism route? Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Complacency just make such folks more righteous. And as I have said: I feel nothing but respect for folks like Philip Heron (principal gcc-rs developer) since they are trying to advance things they believe in. But when people start demanding from others, from people who don't share their “death to the non-free software” religion that they should “join the right side” and start fighting for the world without non-free software… that poor attempt to apply cancel culture to free software… it's better to stop it now before it become too toxic.
Posted Dec 8, 2021 22:40 UTC (Wed)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (9 responses)
I don't think one needs to be a “free software zealot” to point out that Linux as an eminently capable operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks would be showcased considerably more convincingly if the figureheads of the premier Linux-promoting industry organisation actually used Linux more in their publically visible activities. This is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of common sense.
Posted Dec 8, 2021 23:53 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (8 responses)
And the very same common sense would say that for such “message” to be true Linux desktop have to actually be an eminently capable operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks. Which is not true today and wasn't true for last 30 years. Linus is all too ready to admit that and Linux Foundation folks think so, too. Their behavior shows that pretty well. Sure. But one have to be a free software zealot to try to insist that Linux Foundation folks have to showcase something that is not true. Now, one may try to argue that Linux Foundation have abandoned desktop prematurely and that Linux desktop can, in fact, be salvaged. That's an interesting POV and may even be true. But as long as Linux Desktop is not suitable for non-programmers (which is, more-or-less the state of Linux desktop today) I don't see how one can fault them for not using it.
Posted Dec 9, 2021 11:15 UTC (Thu)
by anton (subscriber, #25547)
[Link] (4 responses)
Which is not true today and wasn't true for last 30 years.
Posted Dec 9, 2021 11:29 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (3 responses)
There is old adage about Linux desktop: “You can tune everything in Linux — and you will be tuning everything” (because otherwise nothing would work). That was true 28 years ago, that was true yesterday and it's true today. Sure, if you have dedicated admin which will tune everything for you… this may work. But most people want a desktop that they can use without reading bazillion HOWTOs and without typing arcane commands in the command line. The majority don't even know what command line is — and don't want to know. But they want to install and use nice apps. Not possible for the majority of population: very few apps exist (yes, 10000 is “very few” on this scale), the ones that exist are hard to install, and once installed — they need further tweaking to be actually usable. 28 years ago there were no such versions of Linux at all. Today… Android and ChromeOS work like that. But both arrived too late to have good selection of desktop apps thus, for the foreseeable future, they are not something you may want to use on desktop if you are “power user”.
Posted Dec 9, 2021 16:05 UTC (Thu)
by anton (subscriber, #25547)
[Link] (2 responses)
Actually my desktop "tuning" comes from before I used Linux, and I still use it 30 years later, with a few adaptions along the way, but nothing like what both mainstream Linux desktops and Windows require. But I guess I am lucky in basing my setup on programs like twm that have been ignored by those who feel the need to modernize the Linux experience, and also lucky that these programs have not been deleted.
Ok, so maybe the reason is that emacs is free software. But then I remember calling our sysadmin about something (not my personal machine), and he told me that he has no time, because he has to install an Adobe program on the personal Windows laptop of a colleague of mine, which apparently requires a day of working out how to get the licensing to work (or, on another call, that he has to do the quartely license renewal of some proprietary software or something); or he calls me because the secretary has a problem with installing some proprietary software on her Mac (how should I know anything about that?).
Posted Dec 9, 2021 16:50 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
Then how is it even relevant to the Linux desktop? You are not even using it, you use special-made OS just for anton — yet claim it that Linux desktop works. And no, neither Linux nor Windows (and certainly not Macintosh) require any adaptations. They are perfectly usable out of the box. Yes, you may need to become accustomed to the changes in last version, but they work. Except third-party programs usually work on Macintosh and Windows and more often then not refuse to work on Linux. Not even Valve can fix that properly. Although it tries. Well… that's certainly different from everyone's else experience. In my experience and observable experience of most other users of MacOS and Windows… said users usually manage to pull themselves out from tricky situations using no admin and no support calls, although eventually they bring system to the state where not even knowleadgeable admin may salvage it. At this point it's time to ask any local shop (who would have Windows specialists but wouldn't have Linux specialists) to reinstall Windows. Indeed, in a case where professional admin is actually available Linux works better than Windows. But that's not how desktop is used today. Rather the norm is the case where knowledgeable admin is missing altogether and support is not available either. Except when you are willing to pay for the reinstallation of fresh system. You may argue that it's wrong, then it's not how computers are supposed to be used… but it is how they are used, in the majority of cases, and if OS doesn't support this mode then it's not suitable for the desktop. It's as simple as that. And I know better than to talk to self-righteous moron, but maybe there is hope. And just why would I want to install some obscure irrelevant program which nobody ever heard about? Tell me about something which I may actually see in ads, may learn in colleges, may actually want to install. You know, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Access, maybe Photoshop or even AutoCAD. Heck, even the venerable 1C Accounting program or GARANT would be a great show to see installed on Debian. It's not entirely impossible, but believe me, it's far cry from typing one simple command. That is what desktop users want. Now, again, you may say it's just wrong and the fact that colleges are producing certified Microsoft Access users but don't produce certified emacs users is bad… but, again, that's how world is right now. This looks suspiciously like an attempt to install pirated software to me. Because I, actually, have Adobe Creative Cloud subscription (which I rarely use myself, ironically enough, because I'm mostly a Linux user) and I know it's just a matter of a few mouse clicks (and wait of course, Adobe programs are huge), you really don't need to a day of working out how to get the licensing to work. Certainly there are no need to enter a command line and type anything there.
Posted Dec 9, 2021 17:03 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Even before heading into the comment I was of the opinion that this discussion had gone as far as it could usefully go. Now it is even more clear. How about we stop here, please? This isn't a kindergarten playground...
Posted Dec 9, 2021 13:37 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (2 responses)
Speak for yourself. I've personally been using Linux as a desktop operating system for almost 30 years now. This includes hundreds of professional presentations as well as the production of typeset copy for several books by high-profile publishers such as O'Reilly and a few years' worth of issues of an amateur astronomy magazine, among many other things.
I also support a number of people (family and friends) who use Linux as their day-to-day operating system, for tasks like web browsing, word processing, e-mail, editing digital photographs, etc., some of them on computers that by today's standards are fairly low-range.
In my experience, desktop Linux requires very little ongoing maintenance (certainly not more than one would expect with comparable Windows machines) and “my” user community is quite happy with it. They especially appreciate that updates are generally very smooth, that malware isn't a real issue, and that they're not compelled to buy new hardware every few years. This doesn't look like an unusable system to me.
Posted Dec 9, 2021 14:54 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
It's not unsable (I use it for last 10 year almost exclusively), just not eminently capable. Indeed, the harassers start their piece from the following passage: IOW: they know Linux is not “eminently capable” and “immediately see” that annual report was produced without trying to portray desktop Linux as something else then what it is. Then they make a big deal out of that. Why? If they know Linux is not suitable for Joe Average then why do they expect Linux Foundation members would use it not where it works and where it shines but where you can kinda-sorta-maybe make it work… if your pain tolerance is high enough? So what? O'Reilly existed before Personal Computer in general or IBM PC in particular, before MacOS or Windows. Which means that at one point it was possible to create a book suitable for publishing there without using these tools. Most likely still possible. But for last 30 years publishing industry standard was Macintosh. Means it's just natural to use Macintosh for publishing and not natural to use Linux. Harassing of Linux Foundation members wouldn't change it. Even basic things which were solved in MacOS years ago (in ad-hoc fashion in XX century, and in centralized session about 10 years ago) are still under active development today on Linux. And after these basic things would be fixed you would need apps which can use all that. Which are in wide assortiment on macOS and practically don't exist on Linux. Yes, you can make a magazine with Linux. But you also can do it with Unix System 7 and nroff. Why don't you propose Linux Foundation guys to go this route?
Posted Dec 9, 2021 23:30 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
You're sounding like those people who insist bumble-bees can't fly because of physics. In the meantime, folks – even and especially folks who aren't uber-geeks – are using Linux on the desktop every day and are happy. Get used to it.
Because they're the Linux Foundation, not the Unix System 7 Foundation or the Nroff Foundation. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the people at the Linux Foundation can use whatever they please. One may be excused, however, for idly wondering if it wouldn't strengthen their message if – seeing they're the Linux Foundation and all that – they, well, used Linux more.
Posted Dec 12, 2021 10:33 UTC (Sun)
by ldearquer (guest, #137451)
[Link] (9 responses)
If the main difference between "free software" and "open source" is that with "open source" you can ship closed binaries/devices to the end users, then this sentence seems a bit contradictory to me.
Because the "notion that you can take open source software, and do things with it that were never planned by its original creators" is certainly good for end users too.
I am not saying user freedom is the absolute good on Earth, and I think there may be reasons to prevent it on some devices. But these cases apart, and if you think this "notion" is good, what is the upside of "open source" vs "free software"?
Posted Dec 12, 2021 12:01 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (7 responses)
Which then adds a definite cost to the closed source people.
And Open source also permits Open Core. Which actually describes GPL products like Ghostscript. And I don't know the base licence of CUPS but I believe that has no problem with Open Core. LibreOffice is MPL, which permits Open Core.
And while Open Core has a bad rap, it enables the production of add-ons that wouldn't otherwise be viable.
The big difference between Open Source and Free Software is the mindset behind it. Free Software wants "all software to be free". Open Source is far more pragmatic - "developers have to eat".
Cheers,
Posted Dec 12, 2021 21:34 UTC (Sun)
by tpo (subscriber, #25713)
[Link] (6 responses)
I'd say that characterisation is missing it.
It /is/ possible get food on the table with Free Software, there's enough evidence for that. Though under some conditions it might turn out to be too tough to do so.
The difference is I'd say in the original founding FS anecdote: RMS fixed a bug in printer SW. The company took his fix and denied him further tinkering with it. Never again said RMS.
Open Source means you can see how it works. But you can't necessarily change it. Neither you can necessarily copy it.
Posted Dec 13, 2021 5:34 UTC (Mon)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Dec 13, 2021 14:11 UTC (Mon)
by ldearquer (guest, #137451)
[Link] (2 responses)
This came from discussing that open source may allow you to ship closed binaries/devices whereas free software doesn't
(I know this wording is not technically correct, because once you ship a closed thing, it doesn't qualify as open source anymore, and even free software is itself a subgroup of open source, but I hope it's clear enough :)
Posted Dec 13, 2021 15:29 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (1 responses)
The wording here is confusing. This distinction should just be permissive vs copyleft (or reciprocal) licenses.
Posted Dec 13, 2021 17:33 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
If free software guys would have been winning then I'm sure an attempt to change the terms would have been made. Unfortunately they are losing and the only reason free software is around at all is because they are willing to tolerate non-copyleft software and are all too eager to appropriate achievements of open-source camp and [try to] paint them as achievement of free software movement. Changing the definition is not possible in such an environment: it would expose the true state of affairs.
Posted Dec 13, 2021 9:07 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (1 responses)
According to the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition, that's not true:
(Note that the OSD doesn't say that you must be able to deploy an updated Linux kernel on your tivoised refrigerator. But for the longest time “free software” has been suffering from the same problem. You need to go to the latest version of the GPL to see this addressed, and there is still plenty of “free software” around that is GPLv2-only.)
Posted Dec 13, 2021 18:52 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
You are barking on the wrong tree. Free Software difference is not about licenses. It's about the ideology (heck, they, themselves, explain difference better than me). Whileas free software guys think about how to make sure user would get less freedom to tinker with the device they own open source guys go and create things which people, then, actually use (because they can buy or download them). For open source guy the decision about whether to release something as open source or proprietary is question of practicality and usability but for free software simple move from AOSP to Google Play services is something they be ready to lynch the offender. But yeah, after open source guys organize everything, talk to the companies which make proprietary software and hardware and produce things… free software guys often start talking about how open source licenses and free software licenses are one and the same and how that means free software and open source software is the same and how that means open source guys should stop cooperating with everyone else and start pushing for the world without non-free software. Some free software guys are sane and understand that last highlighted “that” is not follow-up for anything else (only a desire of free software movement), some (these are the ones I call “free software zealots”) insist that it's “natural” and that “opens source guys” are just “simply uneducated”.
Posted Dec 13, 2021 18:34 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
The upside is simple: software which exists is always better than software which doesn't exist. Free software camp in their jihad against non-free software often achieves not the nirvana of plentiful software which everyone can use, but makes certain things just impossible. Remember that paranoid refusal to provide plugin mechanism for GCC? It took years and creation an open-source alternative before plugins become available (and CLion uses CLang and not GCC for obvious reason). Basically position of free software guys: we would try to give you OpenMoko, fail and when you would be deciding what to use — iPhone or Windows Phone, we would tell you many times how great is it to have source for the software you use (and which you don't have). At least that would be the situation an the world without open source guys. Of course in our world, after free software guys would, inevitably, fail and Open Source guys will succeed (with Android — developed in secret in cooperation with, you know, handset developers and nasty mobile operators who insist on control over devices) they would do a 180° turn and say, that hey, Android is free software, too (as least AOSP one) thus we can, absolutely, claim that free software is on winning spray and pressure these nasty guys who did all the work (but refused to join our jihad against non-free software) to play by our rules. IOW: free software zealots try to pretend that we could have a choice between OpenMoko and iPhone while open source guys know that an attempt to push for that choice would mean, in reality, choice between iPhone and Windows Phone and go and make Android. That is the power of open source. It allows you to create things.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
> It doesn't matter if Torvalds is a "Free Software Person" or not, because *Linux is free software*
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
> Huh? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
And how exactly the fact that Linux, by virtue of it's license, can be classified as free software makes it immoral for the Linux Foundation members to use Adobe InDesign on Macintosh? Because that's exactly what free software zealots are trying to preach.
> This is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of common sense.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux desktop have to actually be an eminently capable operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks.
It has been true for me for 28 years when I started using Linux. It has been true for my mother for 13 years when she started using Linux.
> It has been true for me for 28 years when I started using Linux.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
There is old adage about Linux desktop: “You can tune everything in Linux — and you will be tuning everything” (because otherwise nothing would work).
Even if it was true (in my experience it isn't), what's the relevance to "operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks".
Sure, if you have dedicated admin which will tune everything for you… this may work.
Before she started using Linux, she had a Windows desktop and required a dedicated admin who "tuned" everything for her. The number of support calls has been lower since she switched to Linux.
[apps] are hard to install
I should know better than to feed the troll, but this is hilarious. On Debian I just type "apt install emacs"; on Windows the same thing is much more effort (and it took me several years until I could "tune" Windows to not also show a console window when starting emacs).
> Actually my desktop "tuning" comes from before I used Linux, and I still use it 30 years later, with a few adaptions along the way, but nothing like what both mainstream Linux desktops and Windows require.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
>> I should know better than to feed the troll, but this is hilarious.This is a place to stop
>
> And I know better than to talk to self-righteous moron, but maybe there is hope.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Which is not true today and wasn't true for last 30 years.
> This doesn't look like an unusable system to me.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
> So shiny that people that work in the publishing industry immediately see this has been produced with the Adobe toolchain which - unfortunately - is one of the big suites of software not yet available for Linux.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
And after these basic things would be fixed you would need apps which can use all that. Which are in wide assortiment on macOS and practically don't exist on Linux.
Yes, you can make a magazine with Linux. But you also can do it with Unix System 7 and nroff. Why don't you propose Linux Foundation guys to go this route?
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Wol
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
> This distinction should just be permissive vs copyleft (or reciprocal) licenses.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Open Source means you can see how it works. But you can't necessarily change it. Neither you can necessarily copy it.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
> But these cases apart, and if you think this "notion" is good, what is the upside of "open source" vs "free software"?
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report